2017 (5) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unutilized Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on the input services used in the manufacture of the final products, which were cleared for export - denial on the ground that there was no prescribed procedure for filing the refund claim during the relevant period - Held that - the substantive benefit which has been allowed u/r 5 of CCR, 2004 cannot be denied to the appellant in the absence of the prescribed procedure for filing the refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit on input services used in manufacturing final products cleared for export.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim of ?5,99,586/- under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit on input services used in manufacturing final products cleared for export. The department rejected the claim stating that the refund of service tax credit for input services used in manufacturing goods cleared for export is admissible only from 14.03.2006 onwards as per Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT). The appellant's appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's advocate argued that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal in a previous case. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the only ground for rejecting the refund claim was the absence of a prescribed procedure for filing the claim during the relevant period. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where it was held that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allowed for the refund of credit on input services used in manufacturing goods cleared for export even before the specific notification was issued.

The Tribunal emphasized that the substantive benefit provided under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied to the appellant due to the lack of a prescribed procedure for filing the refund claim. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the refund claim despite the absence of a specific notification during the relevant period. Consequently, the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.